In a series of now-deleted tweets, Norm MacDonald criticized Steven Soderbergh’s Behind the Candelabra for portraying Liberace as a gay man. Yes, that Liberace. He deleted all of these tweets, presumably because he was worried they’d get him in trouble, and I hope I don’t get him in trouble by reposting them, but I thought he raised an interesting point.

Basically, Liberace publicly denied being gay his entire life, even going so far as winning libel suits against magazines who implied that he was gay. Behind the Candelabra was based on the autobiography of Scott Thorson, who claimed to be Liberace’s long-time lover, and almost certainly was, but who also, by almost all accounts, is a less than reliable narrator, being fanciful and a drug addict and having various axes to grind (here’s a recent New York Times profile on him). Point being, it’s easy to look at Liberace prancing around in a bejeweled fur cape and go, “Yeah, of course he’s gay,” but maybe that’s unfair. If you’ve had sex with people of both genders, as many gay people have, you do sort of get to choose your own label, gay, straight, or bi. Right or wrong, it’s interesting that we don’t respect that right as much when it’s a person having gay sex saying they’re straight.

The popular assumption is that Liberace was only closeted because he was worried about the homophobic backlash hurting his career. But at the same time, as Norm seems to be pointing out, if we’re really moving towards a world where a person is allowed to define his or her own sexuality, should we really be so dismissive of a guy who said he was straight a million times just because he seemed super gay? It is kind of like putting words in his mouth. I don’t necessarily agree that making a biopic based on a spurned lover’s account makes it an “odious motion picture,” but I don’t think you can just dismiss this as Norm being crazy either. I mean, he is kind of crazy, but he raises an interesting question about who gets to define a person’s sexuality. Me, I let all the satisfied babes do the talkin’, but not everyone has that option.

Read the rest of this entry »

Criterion has a nice feature on directors and their favorite films, and while it’s hard to do one on Stanley Kubrick, considering he’s both (a) reclusive and (b) dead, Criterion writer Josh Warren claims to have compiled a list based on “interviews with Kubrick’s family, friends and colleagues.” You can check out the Criterion films Kubrick loved over there, which include Tarkovsky’s Solaris, Silence of the Lambs, Rosemary’s Baby, The Bank Dick, Henry V, and others. But this being FilmDrunk, I thought the non-Criterion Collection titles on the list were even more interesting.

Eraserhead

Citizen Kane

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

The Godfather

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

Dog Day Afternoon

City Lights

La Notte

Roxie Hart

Hell’s Angels

An American Werewolf in London

Metropolis

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Abigail’s Party

Roger & Me

White Men Can’t Jump

Modern Romance

The Jerk

Yep, White Men Can’t Jump and The Jerk. I’ll admit being surprised by White Men Can’t Jump, but not by the fact that Kubrick liked comedy. He is, after all, the guy who discovered R. Lee Ermey and basically stuck him in Full Metal Jacket and let him say whatever he wanted. Thereby producing one my top ten comedic performances ever, easily. Also, between this and Grantland’s Oral History of White Men Can’t Jump a few months back, could it be that we’re experiencing a renaissance of White Men Can’t Jump? Who could’ve guessed what the future would pull from the junk heap of 1992? Frankly, I had my money on Captain Ron, or 3 Ninjas.

[hat tip: Vanity Fair]

Only an idiot would expect a fifth Die Hard movie directed by the guy who did Max Payne and Flight of the Phoenix to be any good, but it’s still impressive the degree to which it’s been able to limbo under even the lowest of low expectations. And you need only read reviews for 5 Fast 5 Furious or The Last Stand to see how willing critics are to praise a film just for fulfilling the basement-level expectations set by their own marketing. While only seven reviews are in so far (and I made Laremy a deal where I’d have to see this if he’d see Inside the Mind of Charles Swan, so look forward to that), A Good Day to Die Hard is currently pitching a perfect Bucky Larson. For the uninitiated, that’s like a knuckleball that no one can hit because it’s so sucky.

Everything that made the first “Die Hard” memorable — the nuances of character, the political subtext, the cowboy wit — has been dumbed down or scrubbed away entirely. -AO Scott, NY Times

Loud and tedious, “Die Hard” 5 is a shaky-cam/Sensurround blast of bullets and bombs, digital explosions and death defying feats of defying death. Not a decent villain or catchphrase in it  -Roger Moore, McClatchy

Hired hack John Moore taps into the McClane mythology to drain any lingering humanity from the Die Hard series. -John Semley, Slant

A complete waste of time on every level. Loud, obnoxious, boring, cartoonish, morally reprehensible, and just plain stupid. -Brian Tallerico, HollywoodChicago

An asinine, immobile feature that’s dripping with trendy cinematography and toxic banter, while a visibly bored Bruce Willis hobbles through this dud, putting in the least amount of effort possible. -Brian Orndorf, Blu-Ray.com

There’s no artistry to Moore’s work, he’s simply a factory employee who knows how to work a punch press, and his take on the world of “Die Hard” is dispiriting and borderline offensive. -Brian Orndorf, Blu-Ray.com

I can’t decide which scenario is more exciting, Die Hard maintaining its perfect zero percent rating, or reading the barely-perceptible praise from the first critics to rate it “recommended.” On another note, I’m a little sad that so far, no one’s gone with the obvious New York Post-ready headline, “Ho Ho No.”

As part of their always-solid “musicians review…” series, NextMovie brought in Oderus Urungus and Balsac the Jaws of Death of Gwar, to review the one-time Oscar favorite, Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (these days, the smart money is on Argo). A year after calling War Horse “Snore Horse,” Oderus Urungus, presumably speaking for the pair, said, in part, “Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln blows! It’s boring and stupid. Everyone says it’s good, just because he directed it.”

Balsac the Jaws of Death, meanwhile, went on to level an even more specific critique at Sally Field’s portrayal of Mary Todd.

BALSAC THE JAWS OF DEATH: You know what I didn’t like about this movie? It’s that Gidget did a horrible job as Lincoln’s wife.

ODERUS URUNGUS: WHERE WAS THE MADNESS OF MARY TODD!?

I know I say this all the time, but I agree with Gwar. Spielberg tried to illustrate Mary Todd’s bi-polarity by showing her sad that her only son wanted to go off to war, which, while perhaps true, is also the most boring, played-out, period war movie cliché ever. Give us some juicy stuff, like maybe she bathes in the blood of Christian babies to stay young, or rigs up a special harness to have sex with her horse. You know, really spice things up.

If I could critique this critique, I would ask why Oderus Urungus and Balsac the Jaws of Death get to do all the reviews. They should get their bassist, Doug Peters, in on these. Doug is from Oregon.

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters earned almost $20 million in its opening weekend, proving that I’ve completely misunderstood human nature my whole life. I haven’t felt this alienated from my fellow man since the last time someone mentioned any of today’s popular television or music or children’s names. Hansel/Gretel’s opening was three million better than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and while critics hated it (15 percent on RottenTomatoes), audiences… well, audiences thought it was just sort of meh too, giving it a B cinemascore. Hooray for a dearth of options!

Elsewhere, Parker landed in fifth with just $7 million, even worse than the last Stafe movie. It’s all part of my thesis, No One Actually Likes J-Lo. Below even that was Movie 43, with just $5 million.

In seventh place, star-studded comedy anthology Movie 43 tanked with just $5 million. That’s lower than practically any comparable titles, including spoof comedy Disaster Movie ($5.8 million). The audience skewed younger (59 percent under 25 years of age) and about even on gender (51 percent male), and they gave the movie an atrocious “D” CinemaScore. [BoxOfficeMojo]

Yep, even stoned teenagers hated it. It should be noted, though, that it only cost $6 million to make. Still, the savage reviews (5% on RT) were mean enough that the Farrelly Brothers (who produced and directed a segment) felt compelled to answer back::

To the critics: Movie 43 is not the end of the world. It’s just a $6-million movie where we tried to do something different. Now back off. P

— Farrelly Brothers (@farrellybros) January 27, 2013

To the critics: You always complain that Hollywood never gives you new stuff, and then when you get it, you flip out. Lighten up. P

— Farrelly Brothers (@farrellybros) January 27, 2013

Read the rest of this entry »